by sabastious 114 Replies latest jw friends
tec, if you cannot even understand that various forms of writing came into existence long before the bible was written, then you lack sufficient [absorption of] information to fully understand my comments.
I totally understand that. Why wouldn't I?
Peace,
tammy
We are monkeys in shoes.
You say something like this, and then wonder why some people misunderstand evolution?
There are unknowns in the evolution of man. Missing link, and other things. I am not stating that I know what they are; only that I keep seeing and reading bits and pieces that say there are missing things. Man is different than other animals. His brain, at least. I would love some books on the problems or 'missing links' regarding evolution of man, from some scientists who have nothing invested either way. Because I have nothing invested either way, as well. I have always simply accepted evolution as told, but should I? Of course not. I should read up on all the evidence. So if anyone has a book like that to recommend, that would be appreciated.
Peace,
tammy
The evidence that we descended from a common ancestor of chimps is in our genes. It is irrefutable.
The evidence that we descended from a common ancestor of chimps is in our genes. It is irrefutable.
Cofty, the thing about this type of statement is that evolution can only be refuted by scientists. If a non scientist tries to refute it they are told they require more education on the matter. It seems reasonable to assume that a percentage of people will look at this as some sort of mind control technique. Think about it, you are telling people that they need to be instructed before they are qualified to refute. People with religious frameworks are not going to be able to use them to refute evolution because religion is the orange and science is the apple. What about the illiterate or people with lower intelligence? Are they simply to put faith in these scientific conclusions even though they are unable to personally verify them?
-Sab
Many "irrefutable facts" have fallen by the wayside before now.
Many "irrefutable facts" have fallen by the wayside before now. - SBF
Do you think one day it will be discovered that the earth is in fact flat after all?
Sab - you totally miss the point. Science is not a body of facts its a toolkit of techniques, a method that has proven to be astonishingly poweful at discovering reality.
Cofty,
So science is here to tell us what is reality? You mean material reality?Or perhaps that there are other dimentions to this thing 10 or 12 and a quauntum world where anything can happen just that we are not tuned it to that frequency and so we go this one that confronts our consciousness,and the ghost in the machine that causes a body to move see and feel?
I think they will maybe some day but will they be able to explain "Ultimate Reality"the great one thing that does this all.
Do you think one day it will be discovered that the earth is in fact flat after all?
That's not fair and that's not what anyone here is talking about. That's attempting to use an exageration to destroy a point of view. The preceptions of what is an irrefutable fact DO change. I hate it when people say that there is no truth. Nothing about our nature, our universe, or God (real or not) ACTUALLY changes. It's all been there all along. But what we preceive as irrefutable DOES change. After Einstein there were thousands of preceived irrefutable facts that had to change.
Do you think one day it will be discovered that the earth is in fact flat after all?
Maybe the concepts of flat and spherical will be inadequate to express future conceptions of the earth. Can you rule it out?
Cofty, the thing about this type of statement is that evolution can only be refuted by scientists.
no it can be refuted by anyone who can prove their theory to be true.
If a non scientist tries to refute it they are told they require more education on the matter.
because when you learn more about the subject, you can only come to one possible conclusion (i say this of evolution).
YOU can actually do it. i think that is something you're missing. every single thing that rutherford did in the gold foil experiments when he discovered the nucleus in the atom is something tht you can actually do. so when learning about evolution, not only do you learn in class, but you learn in the lab and you learn how sequncing is done for example. or you learn how to extract dna. you learn the math behind the laws and postulates and you can follow the argument to it's conclusion.
the point is, all of this is duplicable. you can learn the math and physics behind the big bang. in physics labs, you'll put into practice those laws and you'll physically be able to verify what it is you learned in class.
It seems reasonable to assume that a percentage of people will look at this as some sort of mind control technique. Think about it, you are telling people that they need to be instructed before they are qualified to refute. People with religious frameworks are not going to be able to use them to refute evolution because religion is the orange and science is the apple. What about the illiterate or people with lower intelligence? Are they simply to put faith in these scientific conclusions even though they are unable to personally verify them?
the illiterate can learn to read. i'm just astounded that would even be an option. is it really better to just let them remain illiterate? they couldn't even read the bible or whatever, if that was the case, to prove that they believe god to thell them x,y, or z
and people of lower intelligence? if they can prove their belief true and they proved all those scientists and eggheads with phds to be wrong, then they weren't loewr in intelligence where they? that was way out of left field. who would take a theory seriously if it included a bnch of stuff that is provably wrong?
once again you can refute it if you can physically prove it to be true. that's science in a nutshell. you hae to physically prove it to be true.
so if you can physically prove your beliefs to be true, then you'd definitely have refuted whatever it was you were arguing against.
based on the simple math of 1 + 1 = 2, we know evolution to be true. feel free to try using your religion to prove 1 + 1 = 2...
